John Lahart
Question:1. Deputy John Lahart asked the Taoiseach to list the members of the Cabinet committee F (national security). [50147/17]
Ceisteanna - Questions (Resumed)
Cabinet Committee Membership
Gerry Adams
Question:2. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach to list the Ministers and officials who attend meetings of Cabinet committee F (national security). [51914/17]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The members of Cabinet committee F are as follows: the Taoiseach; the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade; the Minister for Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform; the Minister for Justice and Equality; the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation; the Minister for Health; the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment; the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport; the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government; and the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach with responsibility for defence. The Garda Commissioner and Chief of Staff of the Defence Forces also attend. Other Ministers may be invited to attend, as appropriate, depending on the business in hand.
The committee last met on 7 November. That meeting was attended by: the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade; Minister for Justice and Equality; Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment; Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government; and the Minister of State with responsibility for defence. Also in attendance were key personnel from the Defence Forces and An Garda Síochána together with a number of civil servants.
The role of Cabinet committee F is to keep the State's systems for the analysis of, preparation for, and response to, threats to national security under review as well as to provide for high-level co-ordination between relevant Departments and agencies on related matters. The Cabinet committee allows greater ministerial involvement in preparing for and managing major security threats.
I thank the Taoiseach for his response. Will the Taoiseach indicate the position on the prioritisation of those threats? Probably one of the growing and most significant threats relates to cybersecurity. Will the Taoiseach indicate the degree to which the national security committee has taken action to prepare the State in respect of potential cyberattacks? We know what happened in Britain, where the health service was overwhelmed. We know other countries, especially eastern European countries, have had their systems paralysed as a result of a cyberattacks. Often, these attacks are perpetrated by other nations and criminal conglomerates. Does the State have a programme of investment to enhance its cybersecurity measures?
Will the Taoiseach indicate where Ireland ranks now for a potential terrorist threat of the kind we have witnessed in London and the United States carried out by ISIS or others and the nature of our vulnerability? Will the Taoiseach give an indication of the dissident threat and how vigilant the Garda and the Army are in that regard? How concerned are they?
The Taoiseach took a decision to get a staff member to photograph him chairing the national security cabinet committee so that it could be tweeted. I gather the Taoiseach took umbrage the last time this was raised, taking the view that we are all back in the analogue era – we are not.
Officials and key personnel will change from time to time, depending on the nature of the crisis. Is the Taoiseach certain that security would not be compromised in some circumstances given the nature of the personnel who would be present? My concern relates to cybersecurity.
Táim buíoch den Taoiseach fosta. Apart from responding to the type of incidents the Taoiseach mentioned, does Cabinet committee A have any role in ensuring that An Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces are trained and equipped to deal with these types of incidents? Does it have the authority to review and update the current national security and intelligence structure? The Taoiseach will be aware that in August last, EirGrid revealed that State sponsored hackers gained access to a Vodafone network it used, leaving its network exposed to attack. Has this threat been discussed by the committee and what defence measures is the Government considering in the light of these threats?
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. On the specific role of the national security committee, has it given consideration to a matter I raised with the Taoiseach previously, namely, the need for a bespoke security agency which would separate security considerations from An Garda Síochána, leaving the Garda as a policing organisation and taking all the elements of security it currently does, together with military intelligence, the national cybersecurity agency and others, into a bespoke security agency? Has this matter been discussed by the committee?
With regard to the facilities available in the event of a national emergency, a recent weather event caused a nationwide red alert. We have a national command centre, which I utilised on occasions in the past. Do we need to review the infrastructure we provide for a national emergency, whether it is caused by flooding, snowfall, an attack or a nuclear incident in the United Kingdom, to ensure we have a secure command centre that will direct our response to any security threat that might emerge?
The security threat or the threat of a terrorist attack is set from time to time by the Garda Commissioner. I cannot remember the exact term used but the threat is at the second lowest of four or five different levels. It was elevated from low or very low to the next level up, either low or slightly elevated. I cannot remember the exact term but it is the second lowest level and it has not been lowered since.
How many levels are there?
I think there are five levels but I cannot swear to that. I am sure the level is currently set at the second lowest level, which I think is called elevated.
As I stated previously, the membership of the Cabinet committee is not a secret and I have just placed it on the record of the Dáil. Aside from the picture that was tweeted, photographers have been invited into the meeting room in the past by the news media, as was a camera from RTÉ, and pictures have been published. The Cabinet committee's discussions are confidential and it is not the practice to answer questions relating to specific issues dealt with by the committee, for example, agenda items, work programmes and terms of reference. I can, however, speak generally about issues of national security and I am happy to do so.
Cybersecurity is dealt with on two levels. The first, the national centre for cybersecurity, had its budget increased in recent times. The Defence Forces also have a role in cybersecurity. We are very aware of what has happened in other countries, whether it is the WannaCry attack which compromised the information systems of the national health service in the United Kingdom, or cyberattacks on parliaments, including the Oireachtas, in recent years. We are very conscious that Ireland has many data centres and a large amount of data is stored here. We need to ensure that, as a country, we are very wise to the risks of a cyberattack and there is greater co-operation at European level on this particular issue. One of the specific discussions we have had around the European Council table has been on what European countries can do in terms of greater co-operation to manage these new security threats such as cyberattacks. We intend to do exactly that and we have also had some initial conversations with the US authorities about how we could share their expertise in and around cybersecurity.
On Deputy Howlin's question on establishing a bespoke security agency, I may be correct in saying that it falls within the remit of the Commission on Future Policing to examine whether we should have a bespoke security agency.
That is correct.
While it initially appears to be a great idea to have an agency similar to those in other countries, whether MI6, the CIA or similar agencies in smaller countries, when one thinks it through ones sees the complications that would arise. Notwithstanding that Ireland is a small country with much lower security risks than other countries, creating a whole new agency and disentangling it from the Garda and Defence Forces would be complicated and our national security could be compromised during the transition phase, which could last for years and be very expensive. I have an open mind on the issue and I am interested in hearing views on it and seeing what the Commission on the Future of Policing recommends.
The national emergency centre is used to co-ordinate these events. I believe I have covered most of the issues raised.
Commissions of Investigation
Alan Kelly
Question:3. Deputy Alan Kelly asked the Taoiseach the reason, during Leaders' Questions on both 14 and 15 November 2017, he stated the Department of Justice and Equality was informed of the legal strategy of the then Garda Commissioner at the O'Higgins commission after the cross-examination of a person (details supplied) had taken place, in view of the fact that this cross-examination took place on 18 May 2015 and the former Minister for Justice and Equality informed the House on 21 November 2017 that she became aware of the legal strategy in general terms through an email on 15 May 2015, the same day the attention of the person was drawn to the legal strategy. [50205/17]
Micheál Martin
Question:4. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he or his officials have received feedback on the search he requested to be done in the Department of Justice and Equality; and if his officials have been in contact with the department regarding same. [50532/17]
Eamon Ryan
Question:5. Deputy Eamon Ryan asked the Taoiseach the timeframe and scope for the inquiry to be carried out by a person (details supplied) on the Department of Justice and Equality. [51716/17]
Paul Murphy
Question:6. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach if he or his officials have received reports on the search he requested to be carried out in the Department of Justice and Equality in relation to information pertaining to the disclosures tribunal; and if he will report on the results of the search. [51998/17]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 6, inclusive, together.
I became aware on 20 November of the existence of an email in the Department of Justice and Equality, dated 15 May 2015, which recounted that an official in the Attorney General's office had telephoned an official in the Department of Justice and Equality. The phone call informed the Department that counsel for the Garda Commissioner at the O'Higgins commission of investigation had raised an issue of an allegation that had been made against Sergeant Maurice McCabe. The email noted that this allegation had always been denied by Sergeant McCabe and that when a file had been presented to the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to it, the DPP had directed that there be no prosecution.
The email went on to state that the issue had also been considered by the independent review mechanism. This had been done in the context of a complaint by a person who asserted that her allegation had not been properly investigated at the time by the Garda. This person has since become known as Ms D.
At that time, May 2015, the O'Higgins commission of investigation was still in the early stages of its work. The author of the email surmised that the purpose in raising the matter may have been to test Sergeant McCabe's motivation. The email also stated that counsel for Sergeant McCabe had objected to the issue being raised.
In relation to Deputy Kelly's question, it is not accurate to state that the Department of Justice and Equality and, by implication, the former Tánaiste were informed of the Garda Commissioner's legal strategy at the commission. In fact, the term "legal strategy" is not used in the email. What the former Tánaiste was informed in the email was that an issue which the author speculated might be argued to be "potentially relevant to motivation" had been raised on 15 May 2015 and challenged by Sergeant McCabe's legal counsel. Most Deputies will understand how the legal system generally operates - counsel raise matters and the issues are tested in argument.
What would have been wrong would have been if the former Tánaiste had sought to interfere in the work of the commission while it was under way and in the approach taken by another party to a judicial commission. She should not and could not have done so in any circumstances. The current Attorney General, having reviewed the matter, has agreed that doing so would have been inappropriate and improper.
I conveyed information to the House in good faith and used the phrase "cross-examination" as it was contained in the briefing note I had been given by the Department of Justice and Equality to assist me in giving my answers. However, this was an error and the note should have referred to "exchanges between counsel", which I understand happened during the opening statements of the commission. There is no question of my having deliberately misinformed the House. However, I apologise for inadvertently doing so.
It is important to note that, while officials of the Department were witnesses in a later module of the commission, neither they nor their counsel were present for this part of its proceedings. Counsel for officials of the Department was not even nominated until many months later, in October 2015, and only attended during the module in which the commission investigated the action the Department had taken on foot of Sergeant McCabe's allegations.
As Deputies will be aware, in response to my direction on 22 November 2017, the Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality provided me with an interim report on 24 November on progress made in the search and examination of departmental records, together with a full report on the implementation of the Toland report. I subsequently received a full report on the matter, dated 27 November. The former Tánaiste, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, as well as the Minister for Justice and Equality were also informed of these developments by officials of the Department.
On 27 November the Department of Justice and Equality published the reports on its website, with two email threads which had been discovered in the course of the search and retrieval of records which have now been sent to the disclosures tribunal, a letter from the disclosures tribunal to the Department dated 22 November 2017 and a report setting out progress in the implementation of the Toland report. Officials in the Department have been advised to ensure that in the unlikely event further relevant records emerge, the acting Secretary General will be notified at the earliest opportunity and that they will be discovered to the disclosures tribunal without delay.
As I stated in the House on 28 November, the events of the past few days have once again exposed major gaps in the Department of Justice and Equality, including in the way important emails were not found and not sent to the disclosures tribunal during discovery. I have directed that there be an external inquiry into that failure. A senior counsel is being appointed to carry out the review as a matter of urgency. I have also stated the Government will establish an independent change implementation group to accelerate the process of reform in response to the problems within the Department identified in the Toland report.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply and for correcting the record. It was an important point.
There is an element of denial about what is going on. I spent a period of time at the Joint Committee on Justice and Equality this morning and genuinely ask the Taoiseach to ask his colleagues, Deputy Colm Brophy and Senator Martin Conway, who made good contributions about what happened. It was extraordinary. Given everything that has gone on and the information we have received through persistent questioning and with help from the media, we still have departmental officials coming to the committee to state the Department provided the information that it had been requested to provide during discovery. That is it - nothing has changed. The meeting was deeply worrying. I asked a specific question. I asked if private email addresses that potentially had been used by senior officials for departmental business and mobile phone records had been provided for the tribunal. The answer was that they had not been asked for them. I had to ask the officials to ask Mr. Justice Charleton if he wanted this information. Is that not crazy? Has anything changed? We were also told that the information provided had been provided based on the questions asked and that there might be other documentation available. In effect, they are acting as judge and jury and as a filtering system in providing information for the Charleton tribunal. The trawl has not changed anything. The culture has not changed.
There are three specific issues. First, the way in which parliamentary questions are answered has not changed. The Taoiseach made a commitment in the Dáil that it would. I have evidence from yesterday. I am receiving far more text, but I am not getting answers in seeking facts, not speculation.
Second, when it comes to the information being provided for the Charleton tribunal, we need a volte-face in attitude. The Department needs to provide everything. It needs to err on the side of providing too much. Information on the specific issues I have raised has not been sent.
Third, I note that last week the Taoiseach was provided with a summary under section 41 by the acting Garda Commissioner. What is he going to do about this? It has to be acted on immediately. It is not a case of writing back and asking more questions.
The tribunal will be live for the next couple of months and we need this unit to be dealt with. We need answers quickly because it is having a dramatic impact on the operations of the tribunal. The Taoiseach should remember that the Department has received lots of correspondence from certain witnesses who have issues and concerns about this issue, on top of the 29 parliamentary questions from me.
A lot has happened. These questions were tabled before the events of last week. It is important that point be made because the Taoiseach has been clear that the former Tánaiste had to resign, in spite of making no errors. He has conflated two issues and formed a view that the former Tánaiste will be vindicated at the Charleton tribunal, but it is not inquiring into whether the Dáil was misled, whether information was placed before the Dáil or whether it was told the full story. That is the key point. The Taoiseach has acknowledged and I accept that he inadvertently misled the Dáil, but it was misled on this issue, not only once but twice and perhaps more. That is the core point in terms of accountability to the House and that was the challenge we faced.
The Taoiseach also acknowledged that if Deputy Alan Kelly's questions had been answered differently three or four weeks ago, we might not have ended up where we are. It is a fact that the Taoiseach has had to apologise, as has the Minister, Deputy Charles Flanagan, for failures in responding to the House. I have not received a satisfactory explanation as to why the Taoiseach, for example, was not told about the existence of the emails. Likewise, there is no explanation - I was not at the committee meeting this morning - as to why the documents were not sent to the Charleton inquiry, other than that it appears the Department was not asked for them, but that does not stack up, as was clear last weekend. There is nothing coming back by way of a rational explanation.
What happened gave rise to huge mistrust between the House and the Executive and the Department. I refer to the drip-drip emergence of documents over a period. As was clear, Deputy Alan Kelly was asking specific questions, to which there were no answers. For example, despite it being laid out for four weeks that there might not have been a phone call as no one could trace one, it was traced eventually. There was a phone call and there is a record of it in the headquarters in the Phoenix Park. It took four to five weeks to have that question answered. On reflection, it should not have taken that length of time to answer it.
The Deputy is over time.
I apologise for the length of time taken. Are we in a position to appoint the change management group? When will the Taoiseach be in a position to do so?
On the examination to be undertaken by the external person to inquire into the reason the documents were not sent to the Charleton inquiry, is the Taoiseach in a position to name the person or indicate when the examination will commence?
On the Toland review, is the Taoiseach concerned about the lack of speed in reforming the Department? The review is nearly two and a half years old and a lot of it did not get anywhere, although some of it did.
The Minister thinks 80% of it has been done.
As others said, many questions remain to be answered, not least about the role played by the former Tánaiste and the current Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Charles Flanagan, in the handling of the emails debacle. I welcome the scéal that a senior counsel will carry out a review. Will the Taoiseach indicate when the senior counsel will be named? The Taoiseach has also stated he wants the inquiry to report before Christmas. Does he expect it to be completed before the Dáil rises for the Christmas recess? Will he publish the report immediately when he receives it?
The Minister has also spoken about his concerns about the size of the Department of Justice and Equality and its area of responsibility. In 2014 the Toland report stated consideration should be given to dividing the Department and that an analysis had been conducted which supported this view. How will the process be progressed? Will the change implementation group have responsibility for advancing it or will it be a matter for the Minister? Is there a timeframe in mind for its completion, if it is decided to divide the Department?
When does the Taoiseach expect the job specification for the new Garda Commissioner to be published?
On the meeting of the Joint Committee on Justice and Equality this morning raised by Deputy Kelly, I was not there. I do not know what transpired at it and would rather not comment on a committee meeting that I did not attend.
That is fair enough. I suggest that the Taoiseach asks his party colleagues about it.
I will certainly do that if I get the chance. I agree with Deputy Kelly that the Department of Justice and Equality should err on the side of sending too much when it comes to documentation. If officials have documentation in front of them and are wondering if it is covered by the terms of reference of the tribunal, they should assume that it is. That is the approach that all Departments should take when it comes to discovery orders from tribunals. I was concerned that when the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Flanagan, heard about one of the famous emails that after he directed it to be sent to the tribunal, the Department still sought legal advice on whether it was covered by the terms of reference of the tribunal. It should have just been sent down straight away.
That did not happen for another week.
Eight days to be precise.
I do not see any reason why, if there is any doubt, one would not just send it down anyway. This is a tribunal established by the Oireachtas for a particular purpose and Departments should not think they have anything to hide or even have that mindset.
In terms of the section 41 letter, that contains allegations about the liaison unit for the tribunal in Garda headquarters. This is a matter that has been raised in the House already. It was raised some months ago by Deputies Clare Daly and Mick Wallace. I have asked the Minister for Justice and Equality to seek a response from the acting Garda Commissioner to the allegations made. I want that response to be a line by line response to each allegation, each assertion and each fact.
Who made the allegations?
As it is a protected disclosure, I am not permitted to say. Indeed, it would be an offence and a crime for me to say anything that would expose the identity of the person making the protected disclosure.
We were asking about the section 41 letter.
The section 41 letter is from the Garda Commissioner informing the Minister for Justice and Equality of this protected disclosure. People who have been following the RTÉ website will be aware of all of this already. In terms of -----
On a point of order, is the Taoiseach sure that it is a protected disclosure? The section 41 letter is from the acting Commissioner and is based on information that was provided to him internally. I was never aware that it was a protected disclosure.
I will double check that. The section 41 letter is not, of course, a protected disclosure but a letter from the acting Garda Commissioner to the Minister for Justice and Equality informing him of something the acting Commissioner feels the Minister needs to be informed of. That is what a section 41 letter is and-----
Is it the Deputy Commissioner who is making the allegation?
No, the section 41 letter relates to allegations made. I will have to double check as to whether those allegations were made in a normal letter or by way of a protected disclosure. Either way, I would not like to expose the identity of somebody making serious allegations.
Departmental Administrative Arrangements
Joan Burton
Question:7. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Taoiseach his plans to change the structure and management of his Department. [50327/17]
Gerry Adams
Question:8. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach his plans for structural and management changes in his Department. [51686/17]
Brendan Howlin
Question:9. Deputy Brendan Howlin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the number of political staff he has now appointed; and his plans for further appointments. [51722/17]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 9, inclusive, together. The role of my Department is to support my work as Taoiseach and to co-ordinate the work of the Government and Cabinet. My Department is structured around seven main work areas. The breakdown of staff currently assigned to each of these areas is as follows: 25 staff assigned to the international, EU and Northern Ireland division; 24 staff assigned to the economic division; 24 staff assigned to the Government secretariat, protocol division and the parliamentary liaison unit;12 staff assigned to the social policy and public service reform division; 11 staff assigned to the strategic communications unit; 28 staff assigned to the corporate affairs division; and eight staff assigned to the information and records management unit. The remainder of staff in my Department include services staff and those aligned to private offices, constituency offices, the Government press office and internal audit.
With the exception of politically appointed staff such as special advisers, all staff assignments, appointments and recruitment in my Department are the responsibility of the Secretary General. While there are currently no plans to change the structure of my Department, the Department’s staffing needs are reviewed on an ongoing basis.
There are currently 19 politically appointed staff employed by my Department. Politically appointed staff employed by my Department include special advisers; personal assistants; civilian drivers to Independent Ministers and Ministers of State; the deputy Government press secretary; the assistant Government press secretary; the chief strategist for the Independent Alliance and the political co-ordinator for the Independent Ministers in Government.
Last week, the Taoiseach told me that there were a total of 22 staff working for him in his constituency and private offices. These include a deputy secretary, an assistant secretary, a principal officer and so forth. There are 18 staff in the Taoiseach's private office and four in his constituency office. I do not know if the total of 22 includes staff working out in the constituency. How many of the 22 staff are political?
In terms of the structure and management of his Department, the Taoiseach has been in office for a reasonable amount of time now. A headline in the Independent newspaper this morning reads "Families 'devastated' as surgery target for children with scoliosis shelved". This is something that the Taoiseach and I discussed when we were both Ministers. When I was Tánaiste and he was a Minister, I secured, with his full support, the funding for the new operating theatre in Crumlin. There are 22 people in his office at the level of deputy secretary, assistant secretary, principal officer, assistant principal officer, higher executive officer and executive officer. How, in that context and in terms of the approach to this very important strategic issue, can we be told through the newspapers this morning of the distress of the parents and families of 210 children, whose target deadline for surgery was confirmed by the Taoiseach and by the Minister for Health, Deputy Simon Harris, to me and other Deputies not too long ago, appears to have been abandoned? This also includes children referred to by the Government in this House who would be facilitated to go abroad, mainly to the UK, to have their desperately needed operations done. I cannot understand what is going on in the Taoiseach's office. I know he is busy and this is a relatively small item in the overall scheme of things but it is desperately important to the people involved.
The debacle on Monday around the negotiations between the EU and the British Government has brought into sharp focus the difficulties involved in managing the Brexit process. Does the Taoiseach have any plans to increase the number of staff in his Department or change how staff are deployed to deal with this issue? I am also concerned at the way the weekend's events were managed. Clearly, Brussels and the Irish Government believed that an agreement had been reached with the British. Experience of negotiations with successive British Governments, unionist leaders and Irish Governments has taught me, however, that until a deal is signed, sealed and delivered it is always best to be cautious. Over the weekend, and certainly from Sunday and into Monday, there was a lot of heavy briefing of the media. I do not know where the chain of command stands in that regard. Perhaps the strategic communications unit thought it was a good news story but there was lots of scéil about an emerging deal. A Government press conference was flagged up for most of Monday in the naive expectation that a deal would be announced. The end result was to give the DUP the excuse it needed.
The DUP leader followed up with ludicrous claims which added to the sense of amateur hour, confusion and farce. The big question is where the process goes from here. Is the Taoiseach prepared to block progress to phase two unless Britain gives formal written guarantees there will be no economic border?
From the briefing we received, it was not clear and, in fact, one could assume - if that is a safe thing to do - that citizens in the North will not have access to the European Court of Justice and the European institutions, like citizens of the European Union in Dublin, Cork or Paris. That was certainly absent from the communication that was relayed to us.
Since the budget, on a number of occasions, the Taoiseach has indicated he is being very reasonable and that he thinks €6 million going on staff and marketing in the new communications unit is okay. I think it is actually quite extraordinary growth, given the Taoiseach mentioned 11 people have been employed in the unit in double quick time. I remember Deputy Stephen Donnelly asking questions about Brexit personnel being increased in various agencies and it took over a year to get two or three extra people into various Brexit agencies. Given the strategic communications unit has been ramped up very quickly, with 11 people working there, if we look at the departmental element of the Taoiseach's Vote, one thing stands out, namely, about one fifth of the total budget is now spent on marketing campaigns. It is quite unusual across the democratic world that the Prime Minister's office - in this case, the Taoiseach's office - would have such a personal budget weighted to marketing. I am unclear as to its direction or the necessity for it.
Last week we were told the children's hospitals would be the focus of a marketing strategy from the strategic communications unit. However, the lack of scoliosis operations will not be focus of that unit. I know the Taoiseach has said we need more good news and that it is designed to counterbalance the independent media, which he believes is too negative. He spoke here some weeks ago and said there is too much negativity in the general independent media. I looked at last night's programme on disability services and I can bet my bottom dollar that will not feature in the work of the strategic communications unit.
I am very uncomfortable with the blurring of the lines between what was traditionally known as Government information and political campaigning. I believe the strategic communications unit, notwithstanding people's best intentions, runs the very real risk of blurring those lines and that we will end up with political campaigns around issues that Government politicians will want to use to promote themselves, as opposed to giving basic information to the public.
I am not sure what the connection is between departmental staff and political staff and the issue of the scoliosis, other than the attempt to use scoliosis and people who are suffering from it and their families to have a go at me. I think that is bad politics, quite frankly. The Labour Party, as we all know, would have 20 members as State-funded staff and I am sure the leader's allowance paid to Deputy Howlin is also paid to higher staff in the headquarters of the Labour Party. Fianna Fáil, through its Senators, Deputies and the leader's allowance, probably has 100 State-funded, taxpayer-funded staff. If it is the Deputies' view there is some connection between that and scoliosis, I think they should perhaps offer to second some of the staff for Fianna Fáil and the Labour Party towards-----
The staff are fine. I asked about the communications unit.
The Taoiseach should be worthy of a better reply. It is a really important issue.
It is a really important issue and not one that should be taken advantage of to have a go at me. If we are going to talk about scoliosis, which is a really important issue, let us talk about scoliosis and let us not use-----
You are the Taoiseach. It is about providing the resources to address it.
Let us not try to use departmental resourcing. It is old-fashioned politics and very disappointing. Let me talk about scoliosis because I actually care about it.
The question is about changes in the management of the Department.
It is the Taoiseach's strategic approach to issues like scoliosis and how he organises those staff.
Given that Deputies were given wide latitude to discuss a very important issue like scoliosis under a question that is related to the structure and management of my Department, I would like to talk about scoliosis as well because I think it is very important. It is not the kind of issue I would use in that sort of way to score tacky points around the management of a Department.
I am a doctor by profession. I understand scoliosis. I have treated patients who have had scoliosis. When I was a medical student, I remember seeing kids who were waiting on operations whose lung function was getting worse by the day and by the month because of the delays in getting treatment. I vowed to myself that if I ever had the privilege to hold political office, to be Minister for Health or Taoiseach, I would try to do something about this. I have been following this issue as a Deputy and as Minister for Health, and I am still following it and working on it as Taoiseach. I take it very seriously and it is something I am very committed to because I really feel for these kids and their families.
We have made very significant strides forward. We have the new theatre in Crumlin, for which I provided funding when I was Minister for Health. I appreciate it is not open fully to capacity but it is open. As Minister for Health I also took the decision to offer the option of going abroad for treatment to patients. I totally accept that many families do not accept that but the offer is made.
I am sure, if the Deputy genuinely cared about this issue, she would have mentioned and welcomed the progress that has been made. At the beginning of February of this year there were 315 patients awaiting spinal fusion. As of 1 December there are 156 patients on the scoliosis active waiting list, so, since February, the number of people on that scoliosis waiting list is down by more than half. The numbers now waiting more than four months was 80 last week, it will be down to 68 this week and by the end of the year, it will be down to 25. There will be only 25 children with scoliosis waiting more than four months and all those will be given an offer in the new year.
Instead of taking cheap shots, I would have thought, at the very least, we would have got some recognition from the Labour Party about the amount of progress that has been made in this area. I know it is not achieving everything or what those kids deserve but to have gone from 315 patients waiting down to 156 now, and to as few as 25 waiting more than four months by the end of this year, is enormous progress. A lot of credit is due to the officials working on this in the various Departments, to the staff in the HSE and, in particular, to the consultants, nurses and other staff in Crumlin.
There are three minutes left on this. I will give 30 seconds each, with the Taoiseach to reply. I call Deputy Burton.
This question is about how the Taoiseach manages strategic issues in his office. We all appreciate that as a new Taoiseach, like any Taoiseach, he is exceptionally busy and, therefore, he has to prioritise and have a strategy in regard to issues. I could read the Taoiseach a letter from one of the most eminent doctors in Crumlin that would probably make him cry. It is about what that doctor feels at the frustration of not having enough resources in terms of doctors and, in particular, nurses to have that theatre-----
Thank you, Deputy.
As I said, the Taoiseach is suffering from a little bit of amnesia. I was involved in having this funded. The Taoiseach was Minister for Health at the time I was Tánaiste and we co-operated on it. What I am interested in is why, strategically, the Taoiseach is not following up on these issues. We appreciate that Brexit is very important but so too are the issues relating to health and other areas in this country.
I call Deputy Adams. If Deputy Burton wants an answer, she should allow time for the Taoiseach to reply.
That is what the question is about. The Taoiseach is choosing now to denigrate it as some form of inappropriate question when it is probably his most important responsibility as someone privileged to be Taoiseach.
I call Deputy Adams, who should be as brief as possible.
I will do my best. I will take my example from the former Tánaiste, who was on watch when many of these issues developed.
My question to the Taoiseach was ignored by him. It was related to access for people in the North to the European Court of Justice and other European institutions and to clarifying that the Government would not move to the next phase of the negotiations until there was a satisfactory conclusion to the current phase.
My fundamental question was about the blurring of the lines between propaganda emanating from the Taoiseach's Department via the strategic communications unit, SCU, and real news. I referenced scoliosis services. Let us be honest - "RTÉ Investigates" was the key programme that provoked a reaction from the Government on waiting lists, in particular for people with scoliosis. People were horrified and appalled, but it took programmes of that kind to force the Government to react. Likewise, with reference to last night's programme on the appalling circumstances of many elderly parents of adult citizens with intellectual disabilities, it will upset people across the country that this is where society is. Will it be "RTÉ Investigates" versus the SCU? Please God, the national children's hospital will be the next good news story and we are all rooting for it. It has had a long gestation period in planning and so on. The SCU cannot become a propaganda unit. Independent media are important. We might not like some of the stories and Governments may not like what emerges on television and radio programmes from time to time in revealing unacceptable situations, but that is the intercourse of political life and accountability by the Government to the people. That is what having an independent media is all about. The use of taxpayers' money and the ramping up of the SCU from nothing to 11 staff and €5 million outstrip the extra allocations of staff for Enterprise Ireland to deal with Brexit in the early months. That is the general point I am making.
For the record, what the SCU deals with is the provision of public information and campaigns. It does not deal with political matters such as the Brexit talks or responding to what happens on television or radio programmes. That is not its role as I am sure I have said many times.
As regards how I structure my Department, one of my special advisers, Ms Angela Flanagan, follows health matters. A specific part of her remit is keeping an eye on scoliosis services and keeping me informed on the issue. While it is absolutely the case that the RTÉ "Prime Time" programme had an impact and spurred further Government action, the provision of a theatre had been approved by me as Minister for Health long before that programme was aired. While I do acknowledge that the then Tánaiste, Deputy Joan Burton, took an interest in the issue and helped me to secure funding for the theatre from the person who is now her party leader and held the purse strings at the time, it is counterbalanced ten to 15 times over by the number of times that I had to fight, when Minister, with the Labour Party to defend the health and disability budget.
I thought that those parties were part of a collective and cohesive Government - very sad.
Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.